TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
2.3 Case Study on Poland – Germany – Czech Republic
Marek W. Kozak (EUROREG, University of Warsaw)
Sabine Zillmer (Spatial Foresight)
[235]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Table of Contents
Summary ……………………………………………………………237
Abbreviations………………………………………………………...241
Introduction…………...………………………………..…………….242
1. Physical areas of territorial co-operation
………………….255
2. Driving forces and domains of co-operation ………………….262
3. Territorial structures and specific border co-operation……… 266
4. Governance structures and implementation of co-operation..272
Annex………………………………………………………..……..…277
References…………………………………………………………...303
List of interviewees …………………………………………………303
List of maps, tables, figures………………………………..………305
[236]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Summary
Study area on covers a triangle on the Czech, German and Polish border. It is an
area of particularly high level of interferences of different factors: geographical,
historical, social, political and economic. And yet, an area of growing interest in joint
problems solving, cooperation, study in culture of neighbouring areas. All these
factors have to be taken into account when assessing the effects and prospects of
further involvement in International Territorial Cooperation (ITC).
•
Physical areas of territorial cooperation;
Strengths: In general, in case of CZ-DE-PL study area geography is
not seen as a development problem. To the contrary: the mountains,
national parks and rivers are rather considered opportunities for
cooperation. Even, if rivers are dangerous (in 2011 three serious
floods one by one) and for a few municipalities the highest
Karkonosze (Krkonose, Erzgebirge) form a real natural barrier. All
people interviewed had not doubt that mountains and rivers are
opportunity. Also question on proper (best, most suitable)
geographical area was not fully understood: functional links, proximity,
similarity of problems were seen as key factors facilitating
cooperation. It relates not only to CBC (Interreg A), but also all others
forms of ITC.
Weaknesses: most negatives are related to historical aftermath of
years of living in isolation. As a result 1990 opened the door for
cultural exchange, visits, migration etc. Due to peripheral location at
for long time sealed off borders, the linking transport and
communication (and other forms of) infrastructure is obsolete or
nonexisting (like central railway connections through the Sudeten).
Mountainous area, less densely populated, with more harsh climate, is
more difficult place to live, though has a strong tourism development
potential. Some people also believed that this region, despite its real
restructuring problems is not of much interest to national capitals.
Future: Despite all negatives mentioned, most of people interviewed
have a strong feeling of a development potential of the region, which
is to a large extent attributed to central location in Europe and
proximity of metropolises of Berlin, Wrocław, Prague and other large
cities. It is remembered that years ago Sudeten served as an
important tourism, cultural and recreation area, which nowadays is
regaining its charm and role. Increased cooperation with othe areas,
cities is only a question of time and modernizing transport
infrastructure to contemporary standards.
[237]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
•
December 2012
Driving forces and domains of co-operation;
Strengths: In general there are three main drivers of cooperation in
the study area:
- geographical proximity;
- historical links;
- similarity of problems to be solved;
- opportunities in development of new economic activities.
Accession to the EU opened possibilities to start strategic and
coordinated cooperation. UE funds helped to speed up the process of
modernization. These factors were particularly important for Poland
and the Czech Republic, which countries joined the EU 14 years later
than Eastern Germany and still have much bigger infrastructural
problems than former DDR regions. On the other hand, however,
though less affluent, CZ and PL areas studied enjoy much lower levels
of unemployment and migration. Most importantly, there is a strong
political will in the area to deepen cooperation and jointly develop the
region.
Weaknesses: Among main weaknesses the following should be
mentioned:
- limited synergies outside tourism development;
- competition prevailing over cooperation in relation to business
development and industrial restructuring;
- difficulties in deepening cooperation (in the form of EGTC for
instance) due to different institutional systems in neighbouring
countries;
- bureaucracy of EU funds, in particular lack of NGOs friendly system
of pre-payments;
- different, not coordinated sufficiently spatial planning systems.
Future:
- more decisive support to develop infrastructural links between three
countries
- significant and supraregionally planned flood protection facilities
badly needed;
- increasingly deeper business and restructuring cooperation,
promotion etc.
- increasing stress on soft measures (projects), knowledge based
economy and information society development.
The asymmetry between Poland and Czech Republic when compared to
German side, where basic infrastructural problems were already solved,
suggests that with the time passing by also in Czechia and Poland
infrastructural problems will loose significance and other forms of cooperation
will be developed.
•
Territorial structures and specific border co-operation
Strengths:
- improved relationships within the region;
[238]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
- improved relationships with the regions on the other side of the
border;
- main facilitators: political will to cooperate, relatively high
organizational density in ITC, similarity of problems, historical ties.
Weaknesses:
- different legal/ institutional systems in CZ, DE, PL;
- relatively low propensity to cooperate in terms of business
development, competitiveness building;
- inadequate pre-financing system, limiting in particular activity of
NGOs;
- too rigid territorial limitations of cooperation (eg Interreg A), while
increasingly functional links are needed which cross the administrative
borders;
- inter-cultural skills and knowledge needed for ITC (even language
problems).
Future: There is common understanding that every form of ITC needs
specific structure in order to attain its objectives. It is expected, that
like on the German side, infrastructural projects will loose on
significance and more soft activities will be supported (HRD, business
development, spatial planning, R&D development, information
society). New more functional links of cooperation will be developed.
More attention will be given to synergy effect, quality of justification
and project preparation. Best practice sharing a
•
Governance structures and implementation of co-operation
Strengths:
- improving formal and informal contact among partners;
- ability to fast, decisive and effective assistance offered cross border
(floods in 2011), often based on informal ties;
- widening scope of cooperation: often starts from small, soft projects
(cultural exchange, get acquainted projects) which create conditions
for other, more complex and difficult forms of cooperation;
- growing understanding, that a number of problems cannot be solved
in separation, willingness to cooperate;
- close cooperation by neighbouring municipalities, improving ties
between large cities and specialised institutions of regional scale of
operations.
Weaknesses:
- differences in terms of institutional systems (competences
distribution) in three countries;
- still shortage of multilingual staff (and with inter-cultural skills);
[239]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
- difficult position of NGOs (lack of pre-financing schemes reduces
their activities);
- lack of cross-border spatial planning systems;
- overly bureaucratic delivery system of the EU funds;
- slowly more and more visible inadequate (too small) support to
economic development.
Future:
- more flexible rules, greater emphasis on debureacratisation and
qualitative matters;
- move from orientation on rules to orientation on objectives attaining;
- common spatial planning as one of the conditions for future
coordination of activities;
- better staff skills.
[240]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Abbreviations
CAWI
Computer Assisted Web Interview
CZ
Czech Republic
IDI
In-depth Interview
DE
Germany
EGTC
European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation
GVA
Gross Value Added
ITC
International Territorial Co-operation
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
LAU
Local administrative units (LAU 1 – district; LAU 2 – municipality).
Formerly called NUTS 4 and NUTS 5.
NUTS
Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (three levels plus 2 local
levels called LAU 1&2)
Operational Programme
OP
PL
Poland
PPP
Public-Private Partnership
RDA
Regional Development Agency
SN
Saxony
TA2020
Territorial Agenda 2020
[241]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Introduction
Background information about Czech-Germany-Poland crosssborder
co-operation21
The area in question has a long, often turbulent and rich history. Before 1939 large
parts of the population had been expelled from the area. In 1945, by the decision of
the superpowers, the borders were reintroduced or moved to the west and as a result
another part of population had been expelled. Needless to say this is one of the
sensitive cultural and political aspects influencing current and future transborder
cooperation in the area. Eastern Germany (formerly GDR) joined the EU as a result
of the German reunification in 1990, while the Czech Republic and Poland joined the
EU on May 1, 2004. The process of cooperation stared long before, to a large extent
promoted by the Euroregions in the area (Neisse-Nisa-Nysa and Glacensis).
The case study area consists of four neighbouring NUTS 2 units: one in Poland
(Dolnoslaskie Voivodeship, PL 51), one in Germany (Dresden, DED2) and two in the
Czech Republic (Severozápad CZ04 and Severovýchod CZ05). Each of these
regions is a border region neighbouring at least two other units investigated in this
case study. All three regions cover an area of almost 50,000 km2. The northern and
southern parts of the case-study area are covered by flat country while its central part
is characterised by high-mountain ranges with Sudeten (Sudety) Mountains (along
the Polish-Czech border) and lower Rudawy (Erzgebirge) along the Czech-German
border. The area has a relatively well established and diversified transport system.
River transportation does not play significant role in terms of the whole area’s
transborder co-operation. The only exception is the part of the case study area which
is located along the river Elbe/Labe.
Continuos role in crosssborder co-operation is being played by three Euroregions:
Glacensis,Neisse-Nisa-Nysa and Elbe-Labe. They formerly formed first post the 1989
agreements covering tens of municipalities. The Euroregion Glacensis was
established in 1996, while Neisse-Nisa-Nysa in 1991, and Elbe-Labe in 1992. The
Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa is the oldest Euroregion in Central Europe and as a
pioneer contributed to establishing institutional forms of cooperation used later by
other Euroregions. The Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa has about 1.6 mio inhabitants
and its area is completely covered by the case study.
21
If not marked otherwise, the data presented in this chapter come from EUROSTAT
and ESPON sources. Special thanks to Mr Tymoteusz Wronka for his invaluable
assistance with CAWI data preparation.
[242]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Map 1. Area of co-operation (NUTS 2 regions) covered by the case-study
Source: own elaboration.
[243]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Map 2. Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa, 2011
Source: EUROREGION Neisse-Nisa-Nysa website [22.11.2011]
Euroregion Glacensis institutionalizes cooperation between Czech and Polish
municipalities. Except of some Eastern Czech territorial units the remainder of this
Euroregion is included in the case study area. In total the Euroregion Glacensis has a
population of 1.1 mio inhabitants.
[244]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientifiic Report Part II
December 2012
Map 3. Euroregion Glacen
nsis
The Euroregion Elbe/Labe has been founded in 1992 to enha
ance trust and
G
collaboration in all areas of life in the eastern central part of the German-Czech
border. The whole area off this Euroregion is included in the case study area. It has a
population of roughly 1.27 mio inhabitants.
[245]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Map 4. Euroregion Elbe-Labe
Source: http://www.euroregion-elbe-labe.eu/de/die-region/geografische-lage/
Administrative structures
Dolnoslaskie Voivodeship is one of 16 Polish NUTS 2 regions which have
authorities chosen in regional elections. The voivodeship is divided into five
units (Jeleniogorski, Legnicko-Głogowski, Walbrzyski, Wroclawski and
Wroclaw – Voivodeship’s capital city), 29 LAU 1 units (3 of which are urban)
municipalities (LAU 2 units).
regional
NUTS 3
the city
and 169
Until 2008 the administrative region of Dresden consisted of 11 districts, three of
them being city districts. As a result of Saxony’s district reform in 2008 the region of
Dresden is now only divided into five districts (Dresden, Bautzen, Meißen, Görlitz and
Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge) and inhibits with the city of Dresden now only
one city district, which is also the capital of the administrative region and the Federal
[246]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
State. In total, the region comprises 193 municipalities (LAU 2) of which 59 are
urban.
Czech Severovýchod (Northeast) is a statistical NUTS 2 region. It is composed of
three NUTS 3 units: Liberec, Hradec Králové and Pardubice. Severozápad
(Northwest) includes two NUTS 3 units: Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad Labem. The two
investigated Czech regions are divided into 23 districts (LAU 1) and 1602
municipalities (LAU2). In fact since 2003 reform LAU 1 level does not exist formally
and municipalities received wider competencies. LAU 1 level is anyway still used as
police, courts and other state institutions districts.
Thus, the entire case-study area consists of four NUTS 2 units, fifteen NUTS 3 units,
and 1964 municipalities.
Despite the formally similar differentiations of NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions there are
considerable differences in competencies in the different countries of the case study
area. German and Czech competencies are territorially more decentralized than in
Poland. The Polish regions, despite being part of decentralized state, have relatively
little competence in international relations, where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs plays
a key role.
Economy
In absolute terms the poorest region in the entire case study area is Dolnoslaskie
Voivodeship where GDP per capita in PPS in 2007 accounted for 8,900 Euro. In
Czech regions this indicator was higher, but still relatively low (9,500 and 10,100
Euro) while in Dresden it was more than two times higher – 22,400 Euro. But if we
consider relative values i.e. related to the national average, the picture is quite
opposite. In 2007 GDP per capita in Dresden accounted only for 76% of national
average, in the Czech regions it was 77% and 82%, while in Dolnoslaskie it
accounted of 109% of Polish average. This picture could be completed with the
information about the productivity level (PPS) in 2005 in relation to the national
average – in the Polish region productivity was a little bit higher than in the whole
country, while in Dresden and the Czech regions it was much lower (respectively
75%, 79% and 85%). Although Dresden is among the poorest German regions its
average annual GDP growth rate of 4.3% (2000-2007) is one of the highest in the
country (172% of the national figure), but at the same time this growth rate
represents the lowest in the case study area. The highest growth rates were in Czech
regions (12.4% and 13.4%) but in relation to the national average they were not
particularly high, ranging only between 83% and 89% of the national average. The
Polish region with 11.1% average annual growth (2000-2007) rate has been the most
dynamic region in Poland (116% of the national average) since 2005.
Unemployment rates in the case study area are quite diversified as well, especially in
relation to the national or EU27 average. In 2008 the lowest rates were in the Czech
[247]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
regions accounting of only 4% in Severovýchod (91% of the national average) and
7.8% in Severozápad (177% of the national average). In Dolnoslaskie region the rate
was higher – over 9% – but in relation to the national average accounted only for
128%. The highest unemployment rate was in Dresden – 12.3% (164% of the
national figure). Only in Severovýchod region unemployment rate was lower than in
EU27 average (57%), and in Dresden it accounted for more than 175% of EU27
average figure. At the same time unemployment rate in 2001-2008 decreased most
strongly in the German region (by almost 60%), while in Polish region it decreased
only by 2.1%, and in the Czech regions it even increased by 33% in Severozápad
and by 15.3% in Severovýchod.
The overall economic situation does not only differ considerably between the four
NUTS 2 regions but also within them. GDP per capita disparities are the highest in
Dolnoslaskie Voivodeship, where due to its structural richness in relation to the
national average it varied in 2007 from 168% in Legnicko-Glogowski NUTS 3 unit
(which economy is based on copper industry) and 148% in the city of Wroclaw (one
of the largest and most dynamic cities in Poland) to 77% in Jeleniogorski and 79% in
Walbrzyski NUTS 3 unit. In the German region GDP disparities were somewhat
lower. GDP per capita exceeded the national average only in the Kreisfreie Stadt
Dresden (103%), while it varied between 54% in Sächsische Schweiz and
Hoyerswerda (Kreisfreie Stadt) to 75% in Görlitz (also Kreisfreie Stadt) in the
remaining NUTS 3 units. Disparities within the NUTS 2 regions were the lowest in the
Czech regions. There GDP per capita ranged from 72% of the national average in
Karlovy Vary to 85% in Hradec Králové. In the Czech regions also the annual growth
rate between 2000 and 2007 (in relation to the national average) was similar in all
NUTS 3 units and always lower than the national average (from 72% in Karlovy Vary
and Liberec to 97% in Pardubice). More diversified in these terms was the Polish
region where average annual change in GDP per capita (2000-2007) varied from
69% of the national average in Jeleniogorski to 182% in Legnicko-Glogowski. Thus,
the growth rates were higher in the Polish NUTS 3 units with a relatively high GDP
per capita at the end of the considered period and vice versa. In the NUTS 2 region
of Dresden the situation was even more complex, since the highest annual growth
rates were accounted for in Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis (346% of the
national average) which is one of the NUTS 3 units with a still relatively low GDP per
capita. The lowest rate accounted on for 68% of the national average and was
realised in Hoyerswerda (Kreisfreie Stadt) which still has the lowest GDP per capita
in the region.
All four regions have a strong industrial history, with relatively higher role of
agriculture in the Czech regions and tourism in the Sudeten regions (Dolnoslaskie
and Severovýchod). Although the highest number of nights spent by non-residents in
2008 were realised in the Czech regions, growth of this indicator between 2000
and2008 was in Dresden and Dolnoslaskie Voivodeship (about 60%).
[248]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Social and demographic situation
Total population of the case study area accounted of almost 7,153,000 inhabitants.
Population density is the highest in Dresden region (209 inh./km2). At the same time
this region has the lowest total population number as a result of its considerably
smaller area as compared to the other NUTS 2 regions of the case study area. In all
regions the population decreased between 2000 and 2006, but while in the Czech
regions the decrease was very low (around -0.1%) and in Dolnoslaskie Voivodeship it
was higher but still relatively low (-1,0%), in Dresden region it accounted of almost 3.5%. Also proportions of annual net migration development, which were negative in
all four regions, were the highest in the German region (-0.28% in 2001-2005).
The share of people with higher education attainment as well as the indicators
describing the information society and R&D development are similar in the Polish and
Czech regions, and much less favourable than in the German region. In the latter all
these indicators were above the EU27 average in 2003.
Transnational flows - the role of the border
In comparison to other Polish regions Dolnoslaskie has relatively well established
regional and institutions (in Wroclaw) and international (also cross-border)
cooperation networks. Due to its location along the international transport axes III to
Poland and IV to the Czech Republic, Dresden is well integrated into international
flows. The region especially exports manufactured products and Poland and the
Czech Republic belong to the most important countries for Saxonian exports. The
share of Severovýchod in the national-wide export represented 17.6% in 2005 (per
capita export share 221,500 CZK) and was the second highest among Czech NUTS
2 regions. Severozápad region was below the national average according to both, its
share in overall exports (only 9.7%) and export performance related to the region’s
population (per capita export share 160,300 CZK).
Majority of the study area is located in certain distance from main transport corridors
of Central Europe. It is mostly due to Sudeten mountains. However, north-western
part is located along major European A4, A18 and E40 corridors connecting Wrocław
with Dresden and Berlin. A railroad system complements the road system. An
important role is being played by the corridors linking Prague, Berlin and Dresden.
Relatively less busy is the corridor Prague-Warsaw going through
Glatz/Kladsko/Kłodzko that is crosses right in the middle of study area (map 5). Even
if the majority of the area in question cannot directly benefit from existing major
transport links, most, if not all of them have easy access to them. Most difficult is the
situation of municipalities located at the foot of Sudeten. In general, the area is
surrounded by very busy and modernized transport corridors (see also EC 2010).
[249]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Map 5. Freight transport, 2006.
Source: European Commission.
[250]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Territorial cooperation
As the case study area is located in a triangle of countries, several relations need to
be differentiated when analysing territorial cooperation.
The Polish-German INTERREG IVa cooperation, on the German side, is principally
restricted to the new district of Görlitz and the new district of Bautzen is considered
an adjacent area to which the 20 % rule applies. Therefore, Polish-German
INTERREG IVa cooperation only covers the eastern part of the administrative region.
Within this programme a broad variety of projects for the promotion of cross-border
development and social integration is supported. Besides the local Euroregion and
public administrations of the region’s municipalities also some other public institutions
participate currently in the programme. Among them are hospitals, police
departments, educational institutions, museums and other cultural organisations.
The corresponding cross-border programme between Saxony and the Czech
Republic also covers only parts of the administrative region of Dresden. Besides the
district Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge also the southern parts of the new
districts of Bautzen and Görlitz are part of the core programme area. The remainder
parts of these two districts, Dresden city and the southern part of the new district of
Meissen can participate under the 20 % rule. Similarly to the German-Polish crossborder programme a broad variety of themes is supported. They are covered under
three priorities: (1) development of society’s framework conditions, (2) development
of economy and tourism and (3) improvement of nature and environment. In addition
to the typical kinds of beneficiaries mentioned above, in this region also nature
protection organisations and research organisation participate in the programme. The
former is due to the special focus under the third priority and the latter is mainly a
result of the inclusion of the cities of Dresden and Chemnitz as adjacent areas.
The Polish-Czech Republic Interreg IV A programme focuses on strengthening
accessibility, environmental protection and risk prevention, improvement of
conditions for developing the business environment and tourism as well as
supporting cooperation among local communities. Apart from Jeleniogorski and
Walbrzyski NUTS 3 units in this programme participate also Polish units from regions
other than Dolnoslaskie. The situation is similar in the Czech Republic, where in
Interreg IV A programme participate six NUTS 3 units, including Liberec, Hradec
Králové and Pardubice from Severovýchod NUTS 2 region.
[251]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Map 6. European Territorial Co-operation in Central Europe.
Source: MRR 2011
Since the Federal State of Saxony is part of the Central Europe INTERREG IVB
cooperation area also the administrative region of Dresden completely belongs to this
cooperation area. Similarly also the Polish and Czech parts of the case study area
are completely covered by the Central Europe INTERREG IVB programme. Projects
along four priorities receive support under this programme. In principal they cover the
fields of innovation, accessibility, environment and competitiveness.
Total budgets of 2007-2013 programmes are as follows: Poland-Saxony: 123 mio
euro (out of which 105 mio from ERDF); Czech Republic-Poland 258 mio euro (out of
which 219 from ERDF) and Czech Republic-Saxony 244 mio euro (out of which
207mio Euro shall stem from the ERDF).
[252]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Methodological approach to the case study
Different kind of data from different sources provided a crucial input to the case study
analysis. This included above all secondary statistical data, CAWI results, IDI results,
INTERREG evaluation reports and programming documents.
Two main empirical methods were used to collect information needed for the case
study.
First: individual in-depth interviews (IDI). Persons identified for interviews
represented a wide range of institutions: municipalities, officials of regional
authorities, representatives of NGOs, high schools, EUROREGIONs, development
agencies. The majority was located in areas adjacent to the border (including those
in subregional and regional capitals), 4 regional and national authorities, 2
universities. On the Polish side there were 19 institutions interviewed, on the Czech –
12, and in Germany interviews with 11 institutions were conducted Together there
were 31+11 (=42) institutions interviewed. The choice was based on actors’
involvement in management or utilisation of cross-border and/or transnational
cooperation. Every effort has been made to ensure that all types of important
institutions are covered. The number of people interviewed was higher, as in some
cases more than one person took actively part in the interview. The people
interviewed were representing a variety of institutions directly involved in transborder
co-operation projects at various levels, in local and regional development projects (of
different sources and/or character than transborder co-operation), in regional
development analysis, research and evaluation. A good mix of positions,
experiences, knowledge and competences could be covered. In general, most
interviewees tent to limit initially the scope of transborder co-operation to ETC, in
particular INTERREG A programmes. Despite this it turned out that city-twinning
projects play also a significant, though financially less important role in the cooperation field.
Second: computer assisted web interviews (CAWI). All the municipalities in the
regions covered were invited to answer standardised questions and they were given
instructions on how to do it via the internet. As initial turnout was lower than
expected, members of the team in charge of the Polish side visited majority of
municipalities next to border with Germany and Czech Republic and offered
additional information, what resulted in significant growth of answers received. Due to
a low initial return rate, among others, requests were repeated to increase the return
rates. Altogether there were 98 questionnaires received (51 Czech, 13 German and
34 Polish). Many of them, (8 in Poland, 39 in Czech Republic and 4 in Germany) out
of the 98 public administrations have not had any experience with ITC. Due to the
modest number of questionnaires in each country, no statistical analysis has been
utilised though for the case study analysis. The raw data is presented in the annex.
[253]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
There are some differences in opinions when we compare IDI and CAWI results.
They may stem from the different structure of respondents and/or the CAWI return
rate as the assessment of the actors interviewed in the IDI were quite consistent. In
CAWI mostly representatives of municipalities located close to the border were
included, while the IDI covered also representatives of regional and central
administration, academia and other organizations (agencies etc.) operating on much
larger scale than individual municipalities.
Furthermore, desk research was undertaken, which included literature and
documents’ reviews. While some additional material (publications, folders, maps,
reports) was not related specifically to ITC (mostly general folders, tourist information
etc.) other documents were specifically dealing with one or several aspects of ITC. In
the case of programme documents this usually referred to one specific programme
while in the case of more general literature also selected aspects covering a small
area or even larger areas than those under consideration in the case study were
referred to.
[254]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
1. Physical areas of territorial co-operation
According to the CAWI questionnaire the factors that hindered involvement in ITC
activities most were a lack of interest in ITC, lack of knowledge, lack of knowledge
about potential partners and a lack of knowledge about procedures (table A2). Most
municipalities point out that financial and human resources are just sufficient to
participate in Twinning and INTERREG A programmes but they are too limited to
participate in other forms of ITC (table A12).
Own resources are most important in Poland, in particular for Twinning cities and
INTERREG A. In all countries resources of PPP, foreign partners, national public
funds are almost insignificant, while EU funds are considered to be important in case
of Twinning cities and INTERREG A (table A13).
The first time the municipalities/organisations did become involved in ITC was in the
1990s and related mostly (in Poland and Czech Republic almost only) to Twinning
cities. For obvious reasons involvement in INTERREG started just after the countries’
EU accessioni.e. in Germany in 1990-1994, and in the Czech Republic and Poland in
2004-2006 (table A4).
The organizations in the CZ-DE_PL case study region are involved in a number of
different types of ITC. According to CAWI data, in terms of number of projects, in the
Czech Republic 18 municipalities declared to be involved into any form of ITC and
most of them were involved in INTERREG A (9) and Twinning cities (8). In Germany
13 municipalities declared involvement, mostly in Twininng cities (8) and INTERREG
A, and, unlike in Czechia and Poland, 1 municipality declared participation in
transcontinental cooperation. Among Polish municipalities, Twinning was the most
popular form (24) together with Interreg A (18). In general number of partners
involved in a given form of ITC rarely exceeded 5 (table A3).22
It is quite understandable that in most cases, the municipalities which have been
involved in ITC for several years have not changed their partnership structures a lot
since 2000 (table A5). This is a clear indication for the role of mutual trust and
(common) experiences.
In financial terms INTERREG A and B programmes are most popular as they offer
financial support which is seen as best fitting needs of regional and local
communities. For obvious reasons INTERREG A is source of funding for a large
number of projects. In terms of number of activities also twinning cities play a
significant role. Activities and subregional differences in types of ITC depend mostly
on the programmes’ structure (supply side). International territorial cooperation
22
Please note that any municipality could be involved in a number of different forms of ITC. Number of
projects may therefore exceed number of municipalities participating.
[255]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
covers quite a wide variety of themes in the case study area as illustrated in below
table 1. In all programmes more or less all domains of the study are covered and
projects of different themes are realised. Not least as a result of missing
infrastructure links quite a number of projects deals with infrastructure issues.
Despite advancements in this field, infrastructure is not always developed
simultaneously on both sides of the border. Another very important and quite
advanced field of cooperation is that of flood prevention. As a result of various floods
covering territories of two or even all three countries of the case study area, flood
prevention is perceived as a common issue which can only be dealt with
collaboratively. Similarly, also international territorial cooperation of other domains is
fairly well developed if common concerns prevail, as e.g. in the case of cross-border
natural park protection and fire protection. Domains in which citizens are involved in
international territorial cooperation are also considered to be well developed. These
are mostly related to the domains of education, culture and sports. This is considered
to be a result of the lower level of regulation as compared to other domains such as
infrastructure. This positive development can furthermore be understood as a result
of the above mentioned individual motivations.
Table 1. priorities and domains of the case study area’s INTERREG
programmes
SN-PL 2007-2013
Ziel 3 / Cíl 3 2007-2013
Central Europe
Cross-border development
Development of society
framework conditions
Innovation
- Economy & Science
- Tourism
- Transport &
Communication
- Environment
- Spatial Planning
- Infrastructure & spatial
planning
- Human resources, sociocultural development &
cooperative
collaboration
- Security, rescue
services, disaster
control & fire protection
- Small Project Fund
Cross-border society
integration
Development of
economy and tourism
- Education & qualification
- Economic cooperation &
cross-border economic
structures
- Arts & culture
- Social infrastructure
- Public security
- Development of
Accessibility
- Cross-border tourism
structures
[256]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
cooperative collaboration
- Smal Project Fund
Nature & Enviroment
Environment
- Climate protection, forest
& environment protection,
landscape conservation &
waste management
- Flood prevention, water
management & water
protection
Competitiveness
Sources: on the basis of www.sn-pl.eu; www.ziel3-cil3.eu and www.central2013.eu
The themes shown in the table 1 explain to a large extent the complexity of TC in the
region. The area in question is being covered by a number of different TC types.
There are different examples of projects, follow-up projects or project families which
show that the same theme might be more usefully tackled at local cross-border or
regional transnational level, depending on the specific objective. One example are
transport infrastructure projects, for which it matters whether e.g. a transport corridor
is in the focus or a local transport link. Another example are environmental protection
projects. One organisation deals in one case with environmental protection of one
cross-border
conservation
area
(http://tudresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_forst_geo_und_hydrowissenschafte
n/fachrichtung_geowissenschaften/ipf/fern/forschung/ziel3.2009-08-14.6404625440)
and at the same time also deals with the connection of conservation areas in a larger
geographical territory (www.transeconet.eu/). Summarising it can be stated that for
most themes it is not the theme that matters for the spatial level or type of
cooperation but the focus of the project and the point of view under which the project
is conducted. Thus, it depends on the project’s approach and specific context rather
than the domain itself which programme is most appropriate.
In general of the highest significance for the area nowadays has cross-border
cooperation (INTERREG A) as it addresses daily development problems of
municipalities next to the border. In short it may be said that main problem seen in
the border areas relate to underdevelopment of infrastructure (low quality or lack of
it). This is true in particular in the case of the CZ-PL border where both unfinished
restructuring processes and their aftermaths call for infrastructural adjustments. This
particular border represents on both sides relatively similar needs. INTERREG A
helps to built (or restore old) transport links, provide the region with the social,
cultural and tourist infrastructure which are seen as a foundation for creating
favourable conditions for local population and creation of new economic sectors that
may fill the losses due to industrial restructuring. Also recent floods (3 times in 2011
[257]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
only) call for significant infrastructural investment in the region. The situation is
somewhat different on CZ-DE and DE-PL borders as on the German side a lot of
infrastructural problems have been already solved (including recent investments into
flood protection).
Looking at CAWI data, one should notice that municipalities, in general, stress the
need for investment support. Particularly in Poland, where 23 out of 26 authorities
expressed the clear belief that infrastructure investments should be a theme for ITC.
The respective answers for Czech Republic were 7 out of 10 and in Germany 5 out of
7 municipalities answering this question(table A10).
This results in kind of an asymmetry between Poland the Czech Republic and
Germany. However, when referring to IDI results, such an asymmetry was not only
reported by Polish respondents but also by Czech interviewees in relation to German
side. In their opinions, German institutions tend to put more emphasis on projects
other than infrastructure. As the INTERREG regulation requires joint cross-border
projects it is often relatively difficult to find appropriate partners for infrastructure
projects on the German side.
It leads to the conclusion that according to all available data the time of infrastructure
domination, though still strongly emphasized by many (in particular Polish)
municipalities, in a wider perspective comes slowly to an end also on the Czech and
Polish side. With the passage of time other types of projects will become more
important (economic development, economic co-operation, environment protection
and tourism development, promotion, competitiveness etc) for which future
programmes will have to adjusttheir structures, even though this is not to be
expected for the upcoming programming period.
It explains also involvement into Twinning cities’ co-operation which is more about
exchange of know-how, best practice, experience sharing (though sometimes
covering also hard infrastructure problems). This type of TC is more and more
rational and concentrates on partners with similar past and current problems and
within reasonable reach.
As for the level of involvement of various types of stakeholders in different forms of
ITC, according to CAWI data, all of them tend to concentrate their activities around
Twinning cities and INTERREG A. Better visible involvement in INTERREG B and C
was noted in the case of German and Polish regional authorities. The interviews with
different types of organizations (other than municipalities) confirmed, that
municipalities tend to concentrate on the cooperation form which is closest to their
day-today development problems, while other, more complex and time taking forms
(like INTERREG B and C) are subject of cooperation of larger territorial structures
and specialised organizations (universities, T-Parks, regional agencies, regional and
large cities administration etc).
[258]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Interesting, but in line with the aforementioned explanation about specific points of
view at local and supralocal levels, are the CAWI results with regard to the key
stakeholders. Local governments are the key stakeholders. Not much behind them
are the Euroregions, NGOs (only in relation to Twinning cities). The regional
government is considered to be less important. Interestingly, the national government
is not seen by any municipality as a stakeholder, while the EU bodies’ role is seen
similarly to that of regional governments. Also the role of development agencies or
chambers of commerce is not estimated highly. Only in Germany, consultants and
external experts were seen as important stakeholders in all types of ITC. (table A15).
Competitiveness in the CZ-PL region is often related to technical infrastructure which
is seen as development driver. However, in opinion of institutions involved more
directly into economic development projects, hard infrastructure, though important for
establishing communication corridors and strengthening local economies, cannot
replace specialist support to businesses (and business environment). It seems clear
that it is a question of complementarity and synergy as well. Similarly to the
complementarity of different programmes and spatial levels relevant for international
territorial cooperation one can also find complementary approaches to achieve
synergies between international territorial cooperation projects. These synergies are
aimed for by different approaches. This includes thematic approaches as well as the
utilisation of networks, cooperation contacts and the exchange of experiences
between projects. Furthermore, synergies may have different dimensions. But it
should not be neglected that especially the transfer of project results needs further
improvement.
Although INTERREG projects shall be able to capitalise after they are finalised, it is
often necessary to develop follow-up projects which can enhance previous
achievements and can thereby contribute to an overall strengthening of project
results. An example for such a step-by-step approach are the INTERREG III and IV B
projects ELLA and LABEL (www.label-eu.eu), where the results of the former
projects provides the principal starting point for the next phase of cooperation in the
field of flood management and prevention. Besides the purely thematic synergies of
this kind of follow-up projects they usually also inhibit other synergies: The
infrastructure and capacities of the partners or other relevant stakeholders are known
and it is easier to directly start the follow-up project with content related work.
The knowledge of each other, i.e. the potential partners, is important means to
achieve synergies between projects and co-operating partners. If the partners know
each other already at the beginning of the project development from past cooperation
experiences it is easier for them to assess the others’ expectations and to revitalise /
update learned communication processes. Co-operation based on past collaboration
does not need to start from scratch with each new project.
Besides the so far mentioned synergies in relation to content related synergies as a
result of different approaches also other types of synergies are visible. The exchange
[259]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
within programmes goes also across themes. Sometimes thematic links become
visible between themes, which at first glance appear to be independent from each
other. But synergies also occur in terms of organisational issues. Projects learn from
each other adminstrative and organisational experiences and sometimes utilise other
projects as communication channels, e.g. to disseminate upcoming project events.
As already pointed out infrastructure projects play an important role for international
territorial cooperation in the case study area. And there is still need for further
infrastructure improvements. However, opinions about the appropriateness to finance
infrastructure from INTERREG funds are quite controversial. While it is necessary to
jointly plan cross-border and transnational infrastructures, past experiences have
shown that even an international institutional framework cannot guarantee for such
joint approaches and might as well be financed from other national sources or
objectives 1 or 2 of the Structural Funds. From this perspective it appears to be more
useful to continuously reduce the obstacles in the fields of education, confidence
building, languages and administrative and legal systems to provide for an improved
framework for international territorial cooperation.
ITC has an important and growing influence on intensifying and improving working
relations not only across the border, but also within the area. Preparation of the
projects, financial engineering requirements, co-ordination with activities undertaken
within the framework of national or regional programmes call for close and intensive
contacts. It refers first of all to local and regional authorities. In case of NGOs it is
even more important as due to financial shortages their involvement depends on
proper identification of local needs and institutions to work with on the projects. As it
was already mentions those direct (formal and informal) network of contacts play
extremely important role in exchange of information and experience, identification of
partners or requests for immediate assistance (natural catastrophies).23
In the area there are relatively large complexes of mountains (see introduction) and
small, but dangerous mountainous rivers. Neither of them can be seen as an
obstacle to co-operation.24 On the contrary: flood protection still plays important role
in daily co-operation (and INTERREG programme). Tourism development (based on
natural and historical heredity assets) is seen as one of the most promising theme for
cooperation and joint promotion. Mountains, large Nature 2000 areas are clearly an
asset, not an obstacle.
23
Example form 2011: during one of the worst, unexpected and most damaging waves of flood which
struck in the night, only thanks to informal contacts and one telephone call German side assisted Polish
and Czech population with high-tech fitted helicopters able to locate endangered people using sort of
infra-red and thermo-locators.
24
With one rather insignificant exception. Municipalities located on sides of largest national park in the
area covering highest mountains (Karkonosze; Krkonose; Riesengebirge) have to make ca 40 km
bypass to visit each other.
[260]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Geographical coverage of the ITC needs less administrative borders approach but
certain functional adjustments. Due to growing complexity of cooperation projects it
happens that most appropriate partners can be found outside of border subregion.
Examples: competitiveness, innovativeness building (which may be best designed
and implemented in a functional network) or line projects (flood protection) along the
river. Floods do not stop on the regional borders. More flexibility should be introduced
and in the process of project selection more should depend on the quality of the
project and its justification. If introduction of any organization or authority from
outside the administrative region is justified then it should be accepted.
Quantity or quality of partners – does it matter? Depends. As said before,
administrative borders should not be the only criterion of selecting partners.
Functional links and quality of partner matters. In case of NGOs financial burden (no
pre-payment possible) limits their involvement.
In case of partners involved in twinning city cooperation there is a clear tendency to
reduce the cooperation to these partners only, which are easily accessible (cost of
travel is an issue) and represent similar level of development and encounter(ed)
similar development problems (industrial restructuring etc). There is an interest
shown also in cooperation with the candidate countries (potential Member States).
Anyway, in both cases, it is not a question of dynamic increase of partners, but rather
rationalizing the structure of the cooperation network built by the institutions in the
regions. Quality of partner is of growing importance. The process of rationalization is
underway.
To sum up, in case of CZ-DE-PL transborder territorial co-operation, the experience
gained up-to-day confirms the statements of Territorial Agenda 2020, which states:
“Territories with common potentials or challenges can collaborate in finding common
solutions and utilise their territorial potential by sharing experience. Territories with
complementary potentials, often neighbouring, can join forces and explore their
comparative advantages together creating additional development potential”. This
seems to depict very well the situation in the area.
[261]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
2. Driving forces and domains of co-operation
The most important motivation in the area are the needs as defined by local
municipalities. And indeed there are still some problems unresolved. On the Czech
and Polish side it refers mostly to hard infrastructure (roads, social, tourist and other
infrastructure), while on the German side infrastructural problems seem to be less
burning (but still important). Similarity of problems by no means leads to strong
motivation for cooperation.
Another motivation is stemming from traditional historical ties: despite temporary
isolation in the 80ties there is a strong feeling of cultural links built for centuries.
Important motivating factor is very availability of European funds for satisfying local
needs. From the point of view of many institutions it is slightly better than other
programmes (be it regional or national, sectoral programmes financed by the
structural funds) that it is kept exclusively for border areas. In a way INTERREG
programmes seem to be easier (but not the only) source of funding.
Another motivation relates to willingness to exchange experience, share know-how.
Finally, it is willingness to know neighbours, to get acquainted, make friends.
These motivations play different role in different types of ITC and domains. In case of
INTERREG A it is financially and organizationally well prepared to help solve most
typical problems. On the other hand in case of twinning cities the soft motives
(exchange of experience; willingness to get acquainted with other culture) are of key
importance. In other types of ITC combination of motives may also depend on
objectives of cooperation, types of institutions involved (schools, NGOs, business
organizations, regional authorities, universities etc).
Some indirect information on motivation can be found in structure of stakeholders
who initiated ITC operations. According to CAWI data (that is in municipalities’
representatives opinion) first of all municipalities, secondly regional governments,
euroregions and EU bodies and never national government. Rarely RDAs and
chamber of commerce (table A15).
The character and intensity of cooperation depends also on specific domains. At the
time of field research most developed were cooperation in the domain of transport
infrastructure, social and cultural infrastructure, environment, tourism. It should be
remembered that efforts in other domains (like education, NGOs co-operation) was
also pretty intensive though not consuming large amounts of funding per project.
Again, looking at the relationships CZ-PL, CZ-DE and DE-PL one can see small
differences.
[262]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
While Polish and Czech sides are still expressing high interest in modernization and
building new hard infrastructure, German side is increasingly interested in other types
of domains and projects. In every case there is relatively little interest in co-operation
in purely economic development domain. In particular local communities tend to
compete for investors rather than co-operate. Probably only the tourism industry is
seen as specific economic activity where benefits from co-operation counterweigh
the risks.
Additional light on the issue comes from CAWI results. It is important to remember
that most of respondents represented mostly small municipalities. 23 Polish
munjicipalities was of the opinion that infrastructure should be an ITC theme (3
against). In Czech Republic 7 for, 3 against. In Germany 5 for, 2 against (table A9).
Interestingly, most of those in favour propose that infrastructural investment should
be supported by Twinning Cities and Interreg A (table A10).
In general, when we use the CAWI results, there is large differentiation in assessing
importance of various domains in different forms of ITC. Economy is not seen as
important domain in general, though Germany and in particular Poland see more
importance in the case of twinning cities. In Poland also cultural events, educational
exchange and tourism are connected first of all to Twinning cities. Interreg A was
seen as influential in technical infrastructure, risk prevention, social infrastructure,
cultural events and educational exchange. It has to be stressed that in each case
Czech and German respondents were much less convinced than Polish ones. Other
forms of ITC were not seen as particularly important (table A6, annex).
What was the impact of ITC on other domains? In general, most CAWI respondents
agree that it has relatively high impact on quality of life, tourism and natural
environment (in particular in Czechia). On other domains (such as economic growth,
job creation, international trade etc) – small (see tables A16 and A17). It is also
visible that in the eyes of municipalities ICT has influence on trust building,
preparation of joint projects, but not much influence on networking or cooperation
among firms (A18).
When relating the answer to future development of the area, the opinions were rather
different. Economic domain was relatively highly rated by Polish and Czech
municipalities. Natural environment got highest score in Czech Republic. Absolutely
highest rating in CZ and PL for cultural events, tourism and educational exchange.
Physical infrastructure was not seen as important for future development (table A23).
It is important to know that in case of lack of ITC project funds, most of respondents
would undertake projects/investments anyway, either similar types of cooperation or
different. However, the projects would be rather smaller, and if similar project, than
with smaller budget (tables A20, A21, A22).
[263]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
As mentioned before, it seems that at the moment the expectations vis a vis various
forms of ICT depends on both its objectives and level of development, character of
problem. Each of them is able to address important issues and fill the gaps.
However, one-size-fits-all approach is not recommended here. Polish municipalities,
unlike German, suffer from infrastructural problems (Czech to a lesser extent, but in
case of flood protection problems are similarly burning). There is a growing
conviction among many specialists, that along infrastrucral projects, more soft,
economy oriented projects should be supported, though from subregional and
regional level, as this issues need strong expertise support and wider strategic
approach. Similarly spatial planning cooperation has to start on a larger territory,
covering also key growth centres. All in all, the forms of ITC complement each other
and synergy seeking is a question of involvement all (key) stakeholders to achieve
optimal development results.
There is some relation between domains and a number of partners usually involved.
In case of exchanging experience 2-5 partners prevailed. The same in case of
advising on problem solving. Sharing tools to tackle common problems or joint
implementation of common actions in most cases took 1-5 partners involved. In case
of joint development of spatial strategy and solving cross-border problem mostly took
only 1 partner (table A7).
Most often municipalities responding to CAWI were involved in road projects, cultural
facilities, waste water management and schools related projects (table A8).
The problem of synergies is one of most important for impact of ITC on the region in
question. The simple synergies can stem from building paired projects on both sides
of the border, creating complementarity of functions. This is clearly visible in case of
tourism development: in many cases tourist infrastructure on both sides of the border
is complementary and linked by tourist trails can easily form common tourist product.
Road investment or cultural infrastructure, if well designed and coordinated with
tourist projects, may contribute significantly to the synergy effect. Similar potential,
but not necessarily fully utilised yet, lies in floods prevention programmes. In this
respect not only better funding, but also better coordination of physical planning may
bring significant benefits.
Most of the interviewees (IDI) did not see any particular reason to increase support to
infrastructure within International Cooperation Programmes. However, most (in
particular on the Polish side) believe that there is absolutely no reason to reduce the
level of financing of infrastructural projects (see CAWI results).
Czech side often suggested during interviews (IDI) that with the progress of
infrastructural endownment in the area steady limitation of demand for infrastructure
is expected. As a result more and more funds should be devoted to mix or soft
measures (business development; HRD; promotion; economic restructuring; cultural
cooperation; tourism etc). About the same arguments were presented by
[264]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
representatives of Polish institutions though the needs for infrastructure were seen as
slightly bigger than in the Czech Republic.
For the reason already explained somewhat different (more radical) are opinions on
the German side, where more attention is already today given to soft projects,
increasingly in the field of innovation.
There is no one single kind of activities which would be most effectively supported by
ITC in the area in question. It is fairly differentiated and represents slightly different
problems, challenges and potentials. While Czech and Polish parts represent more
or less similar levels and phase of development (dealing with outcome of
restructuring and creating mostly infrastructural conditions for development), German
side despite all social and demographic problems (unemployment, migration, which
are also visible on CZ and PL side) is more affluent and increasingly looking for other
than infrastructural development projects. Conclusion from the current situation is
that ITC should try to adjust its offer to changing needs and problems of the area. It is
clear that within next decade the structure of domains gaining importance in cooperation (and development in general) will slowly change moving from domination of
hard infrastructure to other development activities. But as a rule, supply should reflect
the demand structure (if properly justified).
[265]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
3. Territorial structures and specific border co-operation
The regional territorial structures are crucial for the thematic orientation of territorial
cooperation activities as well as for the motivation of regional actors to contribute to
these activities. The role of regional structures is particularly visible in the themes
such as infrastructure, disaster control and environmental issues (especially related
to forestry, nature parks and river basins). It is common understanding that the
geographical conditions and structures create a cooperation potential rather than
limiting international territorial cooperation in the case study area. Due to the crossborder mountain ranges with nature parks there are common interests linked to their
preservation. The river basins affect similarly several regions in the case study area
with floods and thus create common problems which cannot be dealt with separately
in an effective way. Even if the number of projects directly dealing with these
geographical features appears to be limited in the relevant programmes (see
example from Poland-Saxony border; table 2), there are additional projects which to
some smaller extent or in a more indirect way tackle the mentioned geographical
features.
Table 2.
INTERREG IV projects related to selected territorial structures*
Cooperation area
No. of projects
administered in
current
programming period
(per November 2011)
No. of projects (per November 2011)
related to
rivers
mountains
transport
SN-PL 2007-2013
73
1
1
6
Ziel 3 / Cíl 3 20072013**
135
3
8
5
Central Europe**
94
4
1
6
Sources: own calculations based on www.sn-pl.eu; www.ziel3-cil3.eu and
www.central2013.eu
*
The number of projects related to selected territorial structures is indicative and
only contains projects primarily dealing with the corresponding structure. Other
projects, however, might tackle these structures as well in a more indirect way.
**
The number of projects is not related to the case study area exclusively but
covers the whole programme area.
Since the river basins (Elbe, Neisse) and the mountain ranges (Erzgebirge) provide
important common themes and problems, these are very important spatial
[266]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
characteristics for international territorial cooperation of the case study area. In terms
of other territorial structures this is complemented by the transport corridors
described in the introduction. Investments in transport connections and accessibility
are continuously considered to be important issues for the area’s development.
However, these investments are not necessarily only linked to physical
infrastructures but include increasingly also technological solutions.
With exception of relatively small number of projects directly related to territorial
structures (table 2), majority of development problems encountered by the region in
question can hardly be attributed to such territorial structures as river basins,
mountains, Euro-corridors, urban areas), as they form only parts of the region as a
whole. In CZ-DE-PL triangle there is a mix of various structures (urban areas,
mountains, river valleys and basins, tourist development centers etc). The problem is
to decide to what extent should they be treated as separate areas or part of one
internally differentiated region. From interviews and CAWI one can see that they are
treated rather as a system, though locally different structure of problems. Particularly
the rivers in Karkonosze-Krkonose-Erzgebirge pose a problem to all municipalities
located down (though they do not form one basin!). The proposed solution would be
to apply functional approach to identify development barriers, but possibly first of all
opportunities and support projects that offer maximum chance for synergy. This
would require joint diagnosis and physical planning co-operation/coordination as a
basis for identification of specific areas and/or projects.
Many regional actors in CZ, DE and PL are primarily concerned about cooperation
themes dealing with their immediate neighbourhood, which are most often dealt with
in the cross-border region rather than in a larger territorial context. This is certainly
the result of (1) the common cultural and environmental heritage, (2) the recent
opening of the borders with the EU accession of Poland and the Czech Republic and
(3) a challenging regional development of parts of the area. As the case study area is
located in central Europe – in quite some distance to the external EU-border –
territorial cooperation with actors in more distant regions seems to be less important
and could possibly be restricted to only few themes. Generally speaking, territorial
cooperation might include non-EU countries if this is useful from a thematic point of
view, i.e. if it is beneficial for the effectiveness of a given theme or project. For most
themes there does not seem to be considerable demand for such an extension as
the cooperation of German actors in the case study area is very much about
territorial proximity. One of the fields for which territorial proximity appears to be less
important is that of R&D. For cooperation in field, specific experiences and
knowledge matter more than territorial proximity as the wide variety of international
and worldwide research networks shows (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7).
This general argument appears to be even more straightforward for economic actors.
For them it is important to recognise a potential benefit from international (territorial)
[267]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
cooperation. Any spatial expansion of cooperation structures needs to include
competitive partners and is considered in relation to the market size. Cooperation
experiences from German companies in the region include not only the regions and
countries of the Central Europe programme but for instance also contacts with the
Baltic States, Serbia and Turkey. However, contacts are only maintained if the
envisaged benefits materialise and the expected market access is sufficient and not
too risky.
Decision on expanding territorial co-operation should be left to individual decisions
based on justifications of individual projects. In some cases functional links (for
instance cooperation with leading faculties of universities located outside region or
any other specialized institution which may significantly contribute to the quality of the
project) should be used as justification for exemption from the general rule.
According to interviewees flexibility in this respect is more and more needed as both
the problems to be solved and projects become more complex and require
specialized knowledge or cooperation in the larger scale than administrative regions.
In the future we may expect increasing number of projects requiring larger scale
cooperation. It refers for instance to economic cooperation or river basin investments
and similar.
Some flexibility in this respect would help to identify and invite to the group of project
partners institutions and experts that would guarantee best preparation and
implementation. In a growing number of cases these partners can be found outside
the region.
International Territorial Co-operation significantly improved external relations with
neighbouring regions in several aspects. It has to be remembered that coi-operation
at larger scale started after 2004, with Poland’s and Czech Republic accession to the
EU. Our research suggests that the progress is visible on two levels of co-operation:
formal and informal. The institutional setting regulating ITC is already well known and
performance is far better than it used to be even few years ago. Many interviewees
stressed the significance of informal contacts and its importance for decision making;
faster, based on mutual trust. Particularly periods of natural disasters have clearly
proven effectiveness and efficiency of transborder relationships using both formal
and informal communication channels.
However, one can see also obstacles which prevent the results to be more visible.
And these still need attention.
It is a quite common understanding that within the current frame of international
territorial cooperation, cross-border and transnational, it can contribute to regional
competitiveness. There are differences in understanding drivers of competitiveness,
[268]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
therefore depending on the interviewees perspective different aspects are mentioned
which need to be improved in order to provide a cooperation environment favourable
for the effectiveness of cooperation activities in terms of regional competitiveness.
There are some sensitive domains as well.
International Territorial Co-operation can improve competitiveness of the region/s
within certain limitations. Most interviewees found infrastructure development as a
factor improving competitiveness of all sides (in particular transport infrastructure).
From IDI it is clear that in the current conditions in the economic field (with exception
for tourism) the CZ-DE-PL subregions tend to see themselves as competing for
investors and SME development. What conditions should be met to strengthen the
role of ITC in competitiveness development? As long as key development decisions
(spatial planning, development strategies etc) on each side of the border are taken in
remote regional capitals with little or no coordination, the progress cannot be
expected. More emphasis should be put on creation conditions for joint planning and
management of development activities. That would, however require additional
conditions. First, creating joint institutions with the competence in development
(possibly within certain key domains). Maybe in the form of EGTC which de facto has
been already agreed upon in the form of draft by regional authorities and prepared
for signing ceremony. It turned out, however, that Polish regional authorities, unlike
Czech and German, have much reduced competences in signing any international
agreements and it needs Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to approve the
proposal.25 Differences in legal systems turned out to be large. There is another
socio-political condition: trust and willingness to share responsibility with the
neighbours.
From an analytical perspective better knowledge is demanded in order to better
understand inter- and intra-regional differences in order to improve the utilisation
territorial cooperation can offer. More practical considerations are partly related to the
organisation of territorial cooperation and partly to its themes. Administrative, legal
and financial conditions are often not considered to be favourable for the
effectiveness of international territorial cooperation. Administrative obstacles to a
large extent lie in the administrative burden of INTERREG programmes. It becomes
increasingly difficult for small municipalities and associations to fulfil the
administrative needs of international territorial cooperation programmes. As a result,
important regional actors do not participate although their participation in international
territorial cooperation projects is expected to be beneficial for regional development.
25
EGTC project was not mentioned by most interviewees. Czech side was more than dissapointed that
the Polish side never mentioned its limited competences. The Ministry proposed so many changes that
in fact it requires new agreement.
[269]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
According to people who have most experience in ITC in the region (those in charge
of management rather than beneficiaries) there is a constant need for training, best
practice sharing, hardware and software enabling effective management and
communication. Surprisingly, on the managerial level, there is still a shortage of
people with high linguistic skills, able to communicate easily with partners on the
other side of the border. And basic communication is not enough. ITC at the moment
depends more on soft factors, than hard one’s. And even if such a hard
infrastructural problem would come to the surface, local municipalities seem to be
able to deal with it successfully.
There is still a number of obstacles that should be mentioned.
Legal conditions are not favourable if they are not reliable enough to provide a stable
framework for potential collaborators. Different legal systems or lack of regulation on
any side makes a problem26. Financial hurdles are often related to the necessary
pre-financing of projects which is difficult to realise not only for public authorities but
especially for environmental and social associations. Other obstacles are linked to
the coherence of funding instruments at different territorial levels. Thus, in order to
improve regional competitiveness by means of international territorial cooperation,
these framework conditions need to be improved. It could be, for instance, beneficial
for the effectiveness of territorial cooperation if instruments which assist these
associations with regard to the pre-financing conditions were implemented.
But also from a thematic point of view, obstacles still exist in the case study area.
Due to its history this area still has a number of shortcomings in relation to its crossborder and transnational integration which need to be overcome. Various needs lie in
the field of cultural, social and language skills. These skills are considered to be
critical in order to improve regional competitiveness by itself and to facilitate other
activities (e.g. economic oriented cooperation) effectively. These skills are necessary
to enable the citizens to act appropriately in the neighbouring country. With regard to
language skills there is a continuous imbalance as German is rather well known in
the neighbouring regions whereas the efforts undertaken to improve the other
regional languages are still too low. Other needs are still inherent in terms of various
infrastructures. This is not only related to transport infrastructure but culture,
education etc.
The identification of these obstacles is directly linked with further needs for
investments. As mentioned above, human capital is considered to be crucial for the
success not only of international territorial cooperation but for regional development
in general. Several interviewees point out that there is a need to enhance cultural,
26
as it has been the case with regard to waste and energy legislation in Poland, still being subject to
changes.
[270]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
social and language skills already in schools. It is considered to be important to raise
the children’s awareness for their border region location in the sense that this
regional specific can be transformed into a potential rather than a restriction. This
kind of awareness rising asks for various types of investments and cooperation. It is
linked to the actual involvement of citizens and children in cross-border activities as
well as to physical infrastructure enhancing international education. There are
several examples for such initiatives in the case study region, e.g. such as the
Neisse
University
(www.neisse-uni.org/),
bilingual
schools
(www.bildung.sachsen.de/schule/2834.htm) and various exchange programmes.
As for facilitating factors they can be listed as follows.
- relatively well developed institutional network of cooperation;
- density of institutions dealing with ITC and close collaboration;
- generally similarity of development problems;
- growing interest in life of neighbours on the other side of the border;
- improving formal and informal relationships thank to more and more intensive
collaboration on projects financed within the European ITC framework.
To sum up this part of discussion it takes more than hard infrastructure to facilitate
ITC in the region.
[271]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
4. Governance structures and implementation of co-operation
The above mentioned obstacles for small municipalities and associations give a first
indication with regard to governance structures in the study area. It is clear, however,
that assessment of the role played by different stakeholders depends on scale of
activities. As mentioned before on the basis of CAWI, municipalities tend to
appreciate their own and other local institutions involvement plus regional
government, strongly underestimating specialised institutions (RDAs, chambers of
commerce) and in particular national governments. One may expect, that this is
because municipalities and these other institutions operate in other domains. While
their capacity makes them strong in different forms and domains of cooperation.
For instance, on the German side of the case study area, due to the restrictions
these organisations face, large cities and institutions are in a better position to
participate in international territorial cooperation to a considerable extent. This limits
the circle of possible key actors who are able to organise and implement international
territorial cooperation activities. Nevertheless, there are a number of capable and
experienced stakeholders who are often active not only in cross-border cooperation
but on the transnational level as well.
The Saxon State Ministry for Economic Affairs acts as administrative authority for the
cross-border programmes. Besides the Saxon State Ministry for Internal Affairs
(Department for European Spatial Planning) there are some cities like Dresden and
Görlitz which are very active in international territorial cooperation. Other active
actors are research institutions (e.g. Technical University Dresden, Leibniz Institute
of Ecological Urban and Regional Development), a few environmental and
educational non-profit associations (e.g. Centre for nature protection Zittau,
environmental centre Dresden), the Euroregions as well as a few small municipalities
(such as Oelsnitz in the Erzgebirge) who are very dependent on individual
engagement.
The most active actors in international territorial cooperation are therefore not
necessarily important key stakeholders in the region but those that have the capacity
to participate and know how to raise funds for international territorial cooperation.
Some large cities and organisations managed to build an institutional capacity to
benefit from international territorial cooperation funds. In other organisations and in
smaller municipalities this is often very individual knowledge based on personal
experiences.
Similar situation may be found on the Polish side of study area. Despite the fact that
numerous local municipalities and organizations are involved in numerous small
projects (in proportion to their affluency and budget), the most important role is being
played by larger towns and cities, like Jelenia Góra, Wałbrzych or regional capital
[272]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Wrocław. It is not only about funding available (what is obviously very important) but
in particular about more complex domains and projects which require higher density
of institutions involved and more specialised knowledge needed. At least in the
theory such concentration of larger projects in main urban areas offers more
opportunities for synergy and for paving grounds for long term development based on
R&D, ICT, information society. CAWI results confirm large differentiation in this
respect (see annex)
Situation in the Czech Republic is not different.
Apart from regional, subregional and local authorities located in larger towns (cities),
specialised and experienced in fund-raising institutions are playing important roles
(Euroregions, regional development agencies, higher education institutions, to some
extent also business organizations). In most cases they are in frequent contacts on
the one to one basis due to specialization and specificity of interests and projects.
Regular meetings of all key stakeholders are exceptional. There are other forums
where many of them meet on a country level.
In more general sense, if regional actors manage to actively participate in
international territorial cooperation they make different experiences concerning the
role of national and other relevant legal regulations. For many projects these rules
principally provide the framework within which the project can evolve. Apart of the
administrative needs of the cooperation programmes, the legal framework does not
seem to hamper the majority of projects. However, this assessment only seems to
cover projects which implement the principal ideas of international territorial
cooperation in a rather traditional way, e.g. by conducting research, organisation of
events etc. Once projects are concerned which try to take new methodological
approaches national regulations can be quite hampering – at least in the beginning of
such a project. A prominent example for such a project is the above mentioned
Neisse University (www.neisse-uni.org/). It is a virtual university fed by the
universities from Zittau/Görlitz (Germany), Wroclaw (Poland) and Liberec (Czech
Republic). It offers master degrees for students who have to attend classes for one
semester at each of the three universities. Although the idea for such a cross-border
degree was welcomed several hurdles e.g. concerning the acceptance of degrees
from other countries had to be overcome in the beginning. These problems were a
result of national rules which had to be applied in each of the countries. Thus, if
cooperation initiatives have a high degree of innovation they tend to be hampered by
national rules – at least until national specifics and interests can be overcome. As it
was mentioned before, there should be a space for both formal and informal
contacts. This is unavoidable if ITC is to contribute to successful study area
development.
[273]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
No matter how innovative the content or the approach of an international territorial
cooperation activity, it can be developed and implemented along different
governance structures. Project ideas can be developed in top-down or bottom-up
approaches, they can be highly institutionalised or organised in rather loose
structures etc. There is no clear picture concerning the preferred governance
approaches and their usefulness. There is a tendency towards intermediate
governance structures, e.g. neither purely top-down nor pure bottom-up, neither
strong institutionalised nor extremely loose structures etc. The specific position
depends very much on the individual position, kind of involvement in international
territorial cooperation and the corresponding experiences.
There is, however, a tendency to favour bottom-up processes for project
development. Such an approach is useful in terms of the knowledge about local
issues to be tackled with international territorial cooperation initiatives. In such cases
the idea is born by local actors which then search for financial funds to realise their
idea. This approach simultaneously implies that the projects tend to be locally driven
rather than centrally motivated. At the same time this approach only works in terms of
international territorial cooperation programmes, if these actors have sufficient
knowledge about the needs and procedures of these programmes. Most interviewees
prefer top-down processes only in relation to the legal and administrative framework
rather than with regard to project development and implementation, although also
strategic projects have been developed as a top-down approach.
The picture is even less clear when it comes to the level of institutionalisation
respectively the level of regulation. It is understood that institutionalisation tends to
help continuity of cooperation. It is also acknowledged that some institutionalised
structures are needed to deal with general problems, such as spatial planning.
Furthermore, a certain level of institutionalisation can help to induce new cooperation
processes in an environment where cooperation is not yet a matter of course. But the
appropriate level of institutionalisation and regulation differs between different fields,
for different themes of cooperation and may vary between programme and project
level. Especially if specific issues are dealt with in individual projects a relatively
loose organisational level can be useful to adjust quickly to new needs, questions,
problems etc. However, also in individual projects some level of institutionalisation is
considered to be useful to ensure outputs in due time, effectiveness and reliability.
In a similar way differs the understanding of useful partnership sizes. Some projects
are conducted with a large number of partners, e.g. more than 20, and they are quite
effective. But there are also a lot of projects with a very small number of partners.
Actually, the majority of projects in the cross-border programmes are conducted by
only two partners, one from each side of the border. These smaller and smallest
projects can be equally effective. The appropriate partnership size depends partly on
thematic needs and partly on the specific problem of the project. Sometimes it is
more useful to involve a higher number of organisations by other means than a
[274]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
formal partnership. In general, the complexity of coordination and processes of
agreement increase the higher the number of involved partners.
One of the key questions about ITC governance is about the choice of approaches
(or solutions). For instance, which solution is better?
a) bottom-up
vs.
top-down,
b) centralised
vs.
locally driven,
c) highly institutionalised
vs.
loosely organised,
d) closely regulated/managed
vs.
open/flexible,
e) narrow stakeholder involvement
vs.
broad partnership, etc.
The answer is straithforward: it depends on individual case, domain, objectives. With
some simplification one can say that the more sophisticated, demanding project or
domain, the more flexibility and broad partnership is needed. In case of typical and
technically simple projects (as many infrastructural) bottom up approach seems to be
well suited. In case of economic cooperation, competitiveness building in the study
fairly complex institutional networks steered by regional capitals institutions are
needed. There may be a mix of various approaches needed to serve the needs of
specific objectives and domains. Flexibility optimal in a given case should be applied.
It does not imply lack of basic rules and weakness of managing institutions. It says
that there is no one-size-fits-all governance solution. The ITC possibly should put
more emphasis on objectives attainment than the observing rigid rules and
procedures.
There is a space for improvement of existing EU International Territorial Co-operation
programmes. The following list is based to a large extent on IDI and CAWI results.
-
-
-
-
In order to help smaller organizations and NGOs to get involved into ITC, prefinancing should be made available for them. Otherwise they will not ba able
to participate in ITC on equal footing.
Planning of infrastructure projects needs improvement. Infrastructure is too
often planned only in relation to the own countries demand and without
consideration of the demand stemming from the neighbouring country.
Incentives for cross-border spatial planning should be improved.
More directly economy oriented projects are needed in the future. This would
imply a stronger inclusion of economic actors, including private firms, than in
the past. In order to allow for such shifts, it would be beneficial if the
programmes got more flexible and if the objectives and priorities were more
strongly developed in the region.
Projects could take riskier and more interesting approaches if they have not
had to fulfil as many quantitative outputs as it is currently the case. Too often
[275]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
-
-
-
-
-
December 2012
projects concentrate more on technical requirements rather than dealing with
interesting contents. Quality of justification should be more taken into
account.
On the other hand the programmes also need some more harmonisation in
terms of application and administration procedures. The general framework of
INTERREG B programmes differs too much. This is an unnecessary burden
for stakeholders who are located in regions with overlapping INTERREG B
areas.
There are too many levels, actors and administrative structures involved in
the management of INTERREG programmes, which makes it difficult for the
projects to fulfil all formal needs.
A project application procedure along two steps would be useful. Too many
resources are spent for project developments and long proposal preparations.
A process in two steps could reduce these efforts considerably for many not
successful project applications.
INTERREG A and B programmes are not always sufficient to allow for
functional territorial approaches. In the case study area, especially the
cooperation between cities (e.g. Dresden, Prague, Wroclaw) is not supported
sufficiently.
The communication of the Joint Technical Secretariat could be improved in
order to provide the projects with better information.
Even though climate issues are said to be important, it is not beneficial if
principally all projects are assessed in the light of climate effects.
Proposed changes do not go towards revolutionary reforms. They are based on the
assumption, that with the advancement of globalization and internationalization
processes the procedures should be more flexible, quality should be increasingly
important factor, soft measures and complex solutions should be prepared in order to
address increasingly complex development problems.
[276]
December 2012
yes
26
no
Poland
8
yes
12
no
Czech Republic
39
yes
9
No
Germany
4
Lack of knowledge
of potential partners
Lack of knowledge
about the
possibilities of ITC
Lack of interest and
low expectations
from ITC
Domain
2
0
0
1
1
of little
revelance
0
not
relevant
2
3
2
somewhat
relevant
Poland
2
1
1
quite
relevant
0
0
0
very
relevant
2
2
7
not
relevant
5
1
5
of little
revelance
10
15
15
somewhat
relevant
13
12
4
quite
relevant
Czech Republic
5
5
1
very
relevant
1
2
1
not
relevant
1
0
0
of little
revelance
Table A 2. Factors that hindered organisations/authorities from participating in International Territorial Co-operation (ITC).
Number of
municipalities
Country
Table A1. Experience of municipalities in International Territorial Co-operation projects (CAWI)
Tables based on CAWI results (N=98; figures in some table do not sum up)
Annex
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
1
2
2
somewhat
relevant
Germany
1
0
1
0
0
0
very
relevant
[277]
quite
relevant
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
3
12
16
12
3
2
1
5
7
5
3
4
11
8
7
9
5
10
December 2012
10
3
2
2
10
14
9
4
0
4
12
3
Transcontinental
Twinning Cities
INTERREG A
INTERREG B
INTERREG C
Type of ITC
0
6
24
5
1
2
0
No of
municip. 1
18
3
4
1
7
2
1
13
2-5
Poland
>5
4
0
6
0
1
8
0
No of
municip. 1
9
1
0
5
0
6
1
0
2-5
3
0
3
0
0
Czech Republic
>5
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
No of
municip. 1
5
2
3
Table A 3. The types of co-operation municipalities were involved in and number of projects or agreements
Lack of funds for cofinancing
Lack of political will
Physical barriers
Cultural/
linguistic/religious
difficulties
Complicated and
highly demanding
EU regulations
Lack of knowledge
about the
administrative
procedures
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
3
0
0
0
1
2-5
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
4
2
2
Germany
2
2
2
1
0
2
>5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
[278]
1
1
0
0
3
1
before 19941994
1999
7
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
20002006
4
11
2
2
0
Poland
since
2007
1
3
0
1
0
Transcontinental
INTERREG C
INTERREG B
INTERREG A
Twinning Cities
Type of ITC
Mostly
the same
partners
6
5
0
1
0
All the
same
partners
14
8
0
0
0
All the
same
partners
Mostly
the same
partners
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Mostly
new
partners
Similar
number
of
previous
and new
partners
Similar
number
of
previous
and new
partners
All new
partners
Czech Republic
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
6
All the
same
partners
since
2007
0
1
0
1
0
All new
partners
20002006
1
1
2
1
0
Germany
before 19941994
1999
5
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
Poland
Mostly
new
partners
20002006
2
5
0
0
0
since
2007
1
3
1
0
0
December 2012
Czech Republic
before 19941994
1999
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table A5. Extent of changes of partners since 2000.
Twinning Cities
INTERREG A
INTERREG B
INTERREG C
Transcontinental
Type of ITC
Table A4. Time of starting International Territorial Co-operation
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
1
0
1
2
2
Mostly
the same
partners
0
0
0
0
0
Similar
number
of
previous
and new
partners
Germany
[279]
0
2
1
0
0
Mostly
new
partners
0
0
0
0
0
All new
partners
Cultural
events
Transcontinental
Educational
exchange Twining Cities
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
1
0
0
0
0
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Poland
Czech Republic
December 2012
Germany
3
0
5
2
0
0
0
3
4
0
1
0
5
5
0
0
8
0
10
4
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
6
0
8
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
1
0
3
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
0
4
0
2
2
1
3
1
2
0
3
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
very
very very
very very
very
low low medium high high low low medium high high low low medium high high
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Type of TC
Natural
environment Transcontinental
Economy
Domain
Table A6. Importancy of a given domain by ITC form
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
[280]
1
0
0
0
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Risk
prevention
Twining Cities
Interreg A
6
2
0
0
3
2
2
2
0
1
4
1
0
0
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
0
1
2
0
0
0
6
3
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Transcontinental
Other
physical
Infrastructure Transcontinental
Roads
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
0
0
Transcontinental
Social
infrastructure Transcontinental
0
0
0
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
2
2
0
2
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
December 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
3
1
4
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
3
1
3
2
0
0
3
2
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[281]
2
0
0
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Joint spatial Interreg C
(physical)
Transcontinental
planning
0
0
1
0
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
0
0
0
Transcontinental
0
0
Transcontinental
Tourism
0
0
Interreg B
Interreg C
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
2
2
1
0
0
5
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
December 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[282]
December 2012
5
2
1
1
0
9
4
0
4
0
1
0
6
6
0
Interreg A
Interreg B
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg B
6
1
0
Interreg A
Twining Cities
4
4
Twining Cities
0
9
5
Transcontinental
0
0
0
Interreg C
Transcontinental
1
1
Interreg B
1
0
0
Interreg A
1
6
4
Twining Cities
Interreg C
1 2-5
12
Jointly implementing
common actions or
investments to solve
local problems
Poland
4
Type of ITC
Interreg C
Sharing tools to tackle a
Transcontinental
common problem
Advising each other on
how to solve similar
problems
Exchanging experience
Domain
>5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1 2-5
4
>5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Czech Republic
1
2
3
1
0
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
4
5
1
1
0
3
1 2-5
4
>5
Germany
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
Table A7. If a given scope of co-operation have prevailed in relations with your foreign partners please assess the approximate number of
partners you worked with that way:
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
[283]
Solving cross-border
(transnational or
transcontinental)
problems which require
cooperation
Jointly implementing a
spatial strategy
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
December 2012
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
[284]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Table A8. Please indicate in which types of joint international infrastructure investments was
involved your organisation:
Domain
Roads
Railways
Type of TC
Twining Cities
Schools
5
0
1
Interreg B
1
0
1
Interreg C
1
0
1
Transcontinental
0
0
0
Twining Cities
1
0
0
Interreg A
0
0
0
Interreg B
1
0
0
Interreg C
0
0
0
Transcontinental
0
0
0
Twining Cities
2
0
1
Interreg A
2
0
0
Interreg B
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Twining Cities
1
0
1
Interreg A
2
0
0
Interreg B
0
0
0
Interreg C
1
0
0
Transcontinental
0
0
0
Twining Cities
3
1
1
Interreg A
1
2
0
Interreg B
0
0
0
Interreg C
1
0
0
Transcontinental
0
0
0
Twining Cities
1
0
0
Interreg A
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Twining Cities
4
0
1
Interreg A
5
1
2
Interreg B
0
0
0
Interreg C
1
0
0
Transcontinental
0
0
0
Interreg B
Hospitals
and medical Interreg C
facilities Transcontinental
Cultural
facilities
Czech
Republic Germany
1
1
Interreg A
Wastewater Interreg C
management Transcontinental
Water
supply
Poland
3
[285]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Table A9. In your opinion, should infrastructure investment be a theme of International
Territorial Co-operation?
Country
Poland
yes
Number of
municipalities
Czech Republic
no
23
yes
3
no
7
Germany
yes
3
no
5
2
Table A10. Within which type of International Territorial Co-operation should it occur?
Type of TC
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
Twinning Cities
16
5
4
INTERREG A
16
3
2
INTERREG B
4
1
0
INTERREG C
5
1
1
Transcontinental
1
0
0
[286]
December 2012
1
3
2
0
7
5
2
3
2
3
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
Shared environmental concerns
Business community
EU membership
Political will
0
1
0
1
6
0
1
0
Factor
Level of growth (development)
in your region
Presence of minority groups
Physical geography between
the regions
Level of infrastructure
Historical relations
Religion
Language
Cultural background
Previous involvement in
International TC projects
Availability of funding
Geopolitical position of the
regions
Institutional background
Civil society
6
2
1
2
3
3
7
2
2
0
2
3
1
0
2
0
0
Germany
substantially somewhat
somewhat
hinders
hinders
facilitates
2
1
10
7
0
1
2
5
6
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
5
0
0
3
3
3
4
1
11
5
3
1
5
5
2
5
5
4
8
7
6
1
5
6
3
2
6
4
2
Czech Republic
substantially substantially somewhat
somewhat
facilitates
hinders
hinders
facilitates
5
2
18
11
3
1
4
8
9
1
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
substantially
facilitates
Table A11. Please assess whether the following factors proved to facilitate or hinder cross-border co-operation of your region (woj.
Dolnośląskie) with regions in Czech Republic and Germany.
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
[287]
December 2012
Staff
Funds
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Domain Type of TC
Czech Republic
Germany
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
8
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
1
0
7
6
0
2
0
5
6
1
1
0
6
4
2
2
0
11
6
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
4
1
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
3
1
1
0
4
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[288]
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
about just
about just
about just
minimum little enough enough substantial minimum little enough enough substantial minimum little enough enough substantial
Poland
Table A12. Please assess the extent to which the following resources are available in your organization/institution for participation in
International Territorial Co-operation projects.
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Type of TC
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Own
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
PublicInterreg C
Private
Partnership Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Foreign
partners
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
European Interreg C
Union funds Transcontinental
National
Twining Cities
Domain
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
1
1
0
3
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
5
very
low
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
6
7
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
1
0
0
7
4
0
1
0
4
9
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
5
6
0
1
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
7
2
1
0
0
very
low medium high high
Poland
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
very
low
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
1
0
0
0
low medium high
Czech Republic
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
very very
high low
2
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
4
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
low medium high
Germany
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
very
high
[289]
Table A13. In recent years, which of the following sources have funded your International Territorial Co-operation? Please indicate the level of
their significance in your total funds devoted to the International Territorial Co-operation:
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
December 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Local
residents
Regional
authorities
Local
authorities
low
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
3
2
0
1
very
low
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Stakeholder Type of TC
0
0
7
10
0
1
0
4
6
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
6
6
0
2
1
4
5
0
1
0
2
4
medium high
Poland
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
4
3
0
2
1
13
18
very
high
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
very
low
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
low
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
3
medium high
Czech Republic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
very
high
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
very
low
2
1
3
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
low
0
0
2
4
1
1
1
3
3
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
very
medium high high
Germany
[290]
Table A14. If any of the following actors/stakeholders are involved in the Inernational Territorial Co-operation in your area please assess its
level of involvement:
(public other Interreg A
than own)
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
3
0
0
0
6
4
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
5
2
Twining Cities
0
1
1
6
7
0
4
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
December 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Regional
government
Local
government
Stakeholder
8
8
1
0
0
3
5
0
18
2
3
0
7
9
2
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
2
2
1
1
3
2
5
7
Czech
Republic Germany
23
Poland
Twining Cities
Type of TC
Table A15. Please indicate 3 key stakeholders initiating International Territorial Co-operation in your area
Business
NGOs
0
1
Transcontinental
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[291]
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Chambers of
commerce Transcontinental
Interreg C
Development
agencies
Transcontinental
EU bodies
National
government
0
1
Interreg C
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
December 2012
[292]
Consultants,
external
experts, etc
Euroregions
and other
cross-border
institutions
NGOs
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
14
14
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Transcontinental
Interreg C
Interreg B
Interreg A
Twining Cities
2
11
Twining Cities
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
4
1
1
0
1
5
December 2012
[293]
December 2012
7
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
6
2
1
0
0
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Twining Cities
Interreg A
1
0
2
1
0
6
2
0
7
5
4
0
Interreg A
Twining Cities
Transcontinental
Interreg B
Quality of
Interreg C
natural
environmental Transcontinental
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
0
1
1
5
5
0
1
1
7
11
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
8
6
0
1
0
3
3
0
0
1
5
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
2
3
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[294]
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
minimal little
moderate substantial big
minimal little
moderate substantial big
minimal little
moderate substantial big
impact impact impact
impact
impact impact impact impact
impact
impact impact impact impact
impact
impact
0
Interreg C
Interreg B
Interreg A
Twining Cities
Type of TC
Quality of life Transcontinental
Job creation
Economic
growth
Domain
Table A 16. If there is an impact of International Territorial Co-operation on your area, please indicate in which theme and what is its level:
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
0
0
0
1
0
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
3
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
1
0
7
5
0
1
0
7
Interreg A
Interreg B
International Interreg C
trade
Transcon.
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Foreign
Interreg C
direct
investment Transcon.
Commuting Twining Cities
Twining Cities
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
2
3
Poland
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
2
3
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
[295]
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Czech Republic
Germany
very
very
very
minimal little
moderate substantial big
minimal little
moderate substantial big
minimal little
moderate substantial big
impact impact impact
impact
impact impact impact impact
impact
impact impact impact impact
impact
impact
2
Type of TC
8
Domain
0
3
Interreg A
7
December 2012
Table A17. In relation to the following flows/exchanges, please indicate how you perceive the impact of International Territorial Co-operation on
your area:
Service
provision
0
6
Twining Cities
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
6
3
0
2
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
7
6
0
0
0
4
4
0
1
0
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcon.
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcontinental
Twining Cities
Interreg B
Interreg A
1
5
Interreg A
Interreg C
Social
commuting Transcon.
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Migration Transcon.
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Educational Interreg C
exchange Transcon.
Tourism
for work
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
5
5
1
1
2
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
10
9
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
December 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
2
[296]
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interreg A
Interreg B
Building Interreg C
mutual trust Transcon.
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Interreg B
Networking
Interreg C
among
Transcon.
NGOs
Twining
Cities
3
3
0
0
Interreg A
0
1
4
0
0
International Interreg B
networking
co-operation Interreg C
among firms Transcon.
5
1
5
Interreg A
Twining
Cities
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
2
0
6
8
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
1
8
12
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
0
[297]
0
1
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
very
very
very
minimal little
moderate substantial big
minimal little
moderate substantial big
minimal little
moderate substantial big
impact impact impact
impact
impact impact impact impact
impact
impact impact impact impact
impact
impact
7
Type of
TC
Twining
Cities
Domain
December 2012
Table A18. If International Territorial Co-operation had an impact on the following activities in your area, please tick them out and indicate the
strength of the impact:
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interreg B
Joint spatial Interreg C
planning Transcon.
0
1
0
1
4
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
1
3
2
0
2
1
9
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
December 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
8
3
3
0
7
0
1
0
INTERREG B
INTERREG C
Transcontinental
Poland
yes similar
Not similar
to those
to those
types of
types of
cooperation cooperation
INTERREG A
Type of TC
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
5
Czech Republic
Not similar
yes similar
to those
to those
types of
types of
cooperation cooperation
1
1
0
2
0
2
2
3
Germany
Not similar
yes similar
to those
to those
types of
types of
cooperation cooperation
[298]
Table A19. If International Territorial Co-operation project funds were unavailable, would you undertake similar activities/investments anyway?
3
4
0
0
Interreg A
0
0
Joint project Interreg C
preparation Transcon.
1
0
0
Interreg B
7
0
0
Interreg A
Twining
Cities
0
1
Twining
Cities
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
December 2012
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg B
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
faster
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
much
faster
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
much
smaller smaller same
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
faster
0
Czech Republic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
much
faster
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
much
smaller smaller same
2
0
0
Germany
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
faster
0
Budget
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Transcotinental
Domain Type of TC
3
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
much
much much
much much
much
lower lower same higher higher lower lower same higher higher lower lower same higher higher
[299]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
much
faster
0
Table A21. I would undertake activities/investments similar to those financed within International Territorial Co-operation projects, and they
would have:
In terms Interreg C
of scale Transcotinental
Poland
much
smaller smaller same
2
3
2
0
Interreg A
Type of TC
In terms Interreg C
of time Transcotinental
Domain
Table A20. I would undertake activities/investments similar to those financed within International Territorial Co-operation projects, and they
would be:
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
0
1
0
0
0
0
Interreg C
Transcotinental
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Poland
very
quite
different different silmilar similar same
0
0
1
3
2
Interreg B
Interreg A
Type of TC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Czech Republic
very
quite
different different silmilar similar same
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
[300]
0
0
0
Germany
very
quite
different different silmilar similar same
0
0
0
1
1
Table A22. I would undertake activities/investments similar to those financed within International Territorial Co-operation projects, and they
would have:
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Table A23. For each type of International Territorial Co-operation (each column) please
indicate 3 domains which are the most important for future development of your area:
Poland
8
Czech
Republic
6
Germany
1
Interreg A
4
5
2
Interreg B
1
8
2
Interreg C
1
8
3
Transcotinental
2
6
0
Twining Cities
5
14
3
Interreg A
7
15
2
Interreg B
3
8
2
Interreg C
Natural
environment Transcotinental
5
11
1
1
6
0
Twining Cities
10
12
1
Interreg A
6
8
1
Interreg B
1
2
1
Interreg C
Social
infrastructure Transcotinental
2
3
0
0
0
0
Twining Cities
21
32
6
Interreg A
15
11
0
Interreg B
2
5
1
Interreg C
4
3
1
Transcotinental
1
2
1
Twining Cities
15
19
6
Interreg A
4
11
0
Interreg B
0
6
0
0
3
1
1
1
1
8
8
2
1
1
4
4
2
3
1
10
14
5
3
0
5
4
3
5
4
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Domain
Type of TC
Twining Cities
Economy
Cultural
events
Educational Interreg C
exchange Transcotinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Physical
infrastructure Transcotinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Risk
prevention Transcotinental
[301]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Interreg C
Tourism
Transcotinental
Twining Cities
Interreg A
Interreg B
Joint spatial
(physical) Interreg C
Transcotinental
planning
18
15
1
3
1
1
5
2
0
1
December 2012
29
16
9
2
0
3
8
5
4
1
7
3
2
4
1
0
1
1
2
0
[302]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
References
CAWI database
EC 2010, Investing in Europe's Future, 5th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial
Cohesion, Luxembourg
EUROREGION Glacensis, 15 Years of EUROREGION, Kłodzko-Kladsko,2011,
http://www.euroregionglacensis.ng.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:publikacja-15lat-wspopracy&catid=66:projekty-wasne&Itemid=103 [10.12.2011]
EUROREGION Neisse-Nisa-Nysa, http://www.euroregionnysa.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=74 [5.12.2011]
IDI database
INTERACT 2011, http://www.interact-eu.net/cbcprogrammes/18 [5.12.2011]
MRR, Wstęp do Funduszy Europejskich, ,
http://www.ewt.gov.pl/WstepDoFunduszyEuropejskich/Documents/mapa_awers_EW
T_231209max.jpg, 2011 [10.09.2011]
Program Operacyjny Współpracy Transgranicznej Republika Czeska Rzeczpospolita Polska 2007-2013, 2007
List of interviewees
Table 1. List of interviews, Czech Republic and Poland
Name of
official
Position
Mr Michael Canov
Mayor of Chrastava
Ms Hana Maierová
Mayor of Turnov
Mr Petr Tulpa
Deputy Mayor of Jablonec nad Nisou
Mr Jaroslav
Date & place
27.06.2011,
Chrastava, CZ
76.06.2011,
Turnov, CZ
27.06.2011,
Jablonec nad
Nisou, CZ
Director, Euroregion Nissa-Neisse-Nysa
27.06.2011,
Liberec, CZ
Regional Contact-Point Interreg IIIa, PolandSaxony, specialist
28.06.2011,
Jelenia Gora, PL
Zámečník and Mr
Pavel Branda
Ms Katarzyna
[303]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Hanczarek
Mr Tomasz Śliwa
Mr Andrzej Helik
Mr Grzegorz
Rychter, Mr Wojciech
Head of the Euroregional Projects’ Unit; Association
of Municipalities of the Nysa Euroregion
Head of the Funds and Development Department,
Municipality of Zgorzelec
CEO; EU Project co-ordinator, Karkonoska Agency
for Regional Development
28.06.2011,
Jelenia Góra, PL
28.06.2011,
Zgorzelec, PL
28.06.2011,
Jelenia Góra, PL
Zasoński
Ms Jadwiga
Osińska, Ms Renata
Director of the European Fund Unit; Head of Unit for
Municipality Development
28.06.2011,
Jelenia Góra, PL
Mayor of Police nad Metuji
29.06.2011, Police
nad Metuji, CZ
29.06.2011,
Hronov, CZ
Kwiatek
Ms Ida
Seidlmanová
Ms Hana
Mayor of Hronov
Nedvědová
29.06.2011,
Mr Jaroslav Štefek
Secretary of the Euroregion Glacensis
Prof. Ryszard Brol,
University of Economy of Wroclaw – Regional
Economy and Tourism in Jelenia Góra
29.06.2011,
Jelenia Góra, PL
President, Association for the Support of Integration
with the EU
30.06.2011,
Jelenia Góra, PL
prof. Z. Przybyła
Ms Jowita Jeleńska
Mr Jacek Kowalczyk Municipality of Kudowa Zdrój, specialist in the
Investment Unit
Rychnov, CZ
30.06.2011,
Kudowa Zdrój, PL
Smejkal
Regional Office of Pardubice Region, Director of
Regional Development and Transport Department
1.07.2011,
Pardubice, CZ
Mr Jiří Binder
Municipality of Pardubice, Director of Department
Mr Roman
Regional Office of Hradec Kralove Region, head of
Grants Unit
1.07.2011,
Pardubice, CZ
1.07.2011, Hradec
Kralove, CZ
Mr Miroslav
Klíma
Ms Ilona
Kwiecińska
Ms Anna Izbińska,
Mr Marek Urbański
Regional Contact Point Interreg IIIA Poland-Czeska
R.
Dolnosląska Agency for Regional Development,
Szczawno Zdrój;
1.07.2011,
Wałbrzych, PL
01.07.2011,
Szczawno
Zdrój, PL
Specialist for Economic Initiatives; Head of the TPark Realization
Ms Bożena Dróżdż
Municipality of Wałbrzych; Head of the European Funds, Strategy and
Analyses Bureau
Mr Martin Půta
Mayor of Hradek nad Nisou
01.07.2011,
Wałbrzych, PL
04.07.2011,
Hradek nad Nisou,
CZ
[304]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
Municipality of Liberec, head of press and foreign relation department
04.07.2011,
Liberec, CZ
Ms Iwona
Municipality of Bogatynia, Head of Regional and Transborder
Czajkowska
Cooperation Department
04.07.2011,
Bogatynia, PL
Dr Andrzej Raczyk,
University of Wrocław, Geography and Regional Development Institute
05.07.2011,
Wroclaw, PL
Ms Aleksandra
Municipality of Wrocław, Environment and Agriculture Department,
Wojciechowska
specialist
05.07.2011,
Wrocław, PL
Mr Radosław Pietuch
Euroregion Glacensis, Kłodzko office, secretary
Mr Paweł Kurant
Marszalkowski Office of Dolnośląskie Region, Head of Transborder
Ms Mulise
Charyparova
dr Sylwia Dołzbłasz
Cooperation Unit
Ms Agata Ozieraniec
Wojewódzki Office of Dolnosląskie Region, Head ofTransborder
Programmes’ Unit
Mr Zbigniew Dynak
Technology Park, director; former director of the Regional Development
Dept., Marszałkowski Office of Dolnośląskie Region
Ms Urszula
Kłodzko Municipality, Development Department, specialist on
Bednarska
international and regional cooperation
05.07.2011
Wrocław, PL
06.07.2011,
Wrocław, PL
06.07.2011,
Wrocław, PL
08.07.2011,
Wrocław, PL
(interview by
phone)
14.07.2011,
Kłodzko, PL
(interview by
phone)
List of maps, tables, figures
Map 1. Area of co-operation (NUTS 2 regions) covered by the case-study
Map 2. Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa, 2011
Map 3. Euroregion Glacensis
Map 4. Euroregion Elbe-Labe
Map 5. Freight transport, 2006.
Map 6. European Territorial Co-operation in Central Europe.
Tables in text (other in the annex).
Table 1. Priorities and domains of the case study area’s INTERREG programmes
Table 2. INTERREG IV projects related to selected territorial structure
[305]
TERCO: Final Report – Scientific Report Part II
December 2012
[306]